ORZIL wrote:this subject
in this forum
should be prohibited
because there is no
empirical evidence

There is no such rule in the Forum Users Agreement. If you think there should be, contact the administrator and ask him to insert it.

Also, I'll have some of whatever it is you're smoking, thanks.

ORZIL wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

ORZIL wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


1) Wrong - it's not in any language.

2) Your refusal to ever engage with substance is looking very suspicious now.

I've responded openly and substantively to you. Show you're capable of doing the same.

this video is
anecdotal evidence?
enable video captioning in English language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n44_E0sT4mE

I don't know what that video is because I am not prepared to look at it until you start putting in some effort yourself to understand the other side of the conversation.

I've responded to all your questions with honesty and substance.

But you're not responding in a similar way. Even when I ask you to respond, you reply with nothing but a question.

Even a friendly discussion is like a game of tennis - you hit the ball to me, I hit it back to you... you don't get to keep hitting balls at me and expect me to continue playing tennis.

this subject
in this forum
should be prohibited
because there is no
empirical evidence

Anyone coming to this thread now has the opportunity to look at how I responded to your requests, and how you responded to mine.

I believe this shows what skepticism is about - fundamentally, it's about honesty. What can we honestly say about the world.

People like yourself aren't interested in what's true, so even if you had the best will in the world, you'd end up being dishonest to yourself.

But you don't have the best will in the world - you're basically just trolling, JAQing off, and generally failing to engage in any level of honest discussion.

I think this provides a good public measurement.

This forum is: General Debunking ‹ Paranormal & Supernatural

There is no solid evidence for Paranormal and Supernatural, that's why it's in the General Debunking subforum.

Desenmascarar - it's a nice word in Spanish, like stripping away the flashy make-up to expose the ugly reality.

Spearthrower wrote:This forum is: General Debunking ‹ Paranormal & Supernatural

There is no solid evidence for Paranormal and Supernatural, that's why it's in the General Debunking subforum.

Desenmascarar - it's a nice word in Spanish, like stripping away the flashy make-up to expose the ugly reality.

a phenomenon
it happens to me
goosebumps
twitch
on the shoulders
yawning
the mental prayer
do the yawns
stop

ORZIL wrote:
a phenomenon
it happens to me
goosebumps
twitch
on the shoulders
yawning
the mental prayer
do the yawns
stop

Wow, that's impressively breathtaking. ORZIL. Let me pause ere I genuflect before your apprehension of higher reality.

Since I may not be witnessing an apprehension of higher reality, but only so much gormless trolling, I shall take my time.

ORZIL wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:This forum is: General Debunking ‹ Paranormal & Supernatural

There is no solid evidence for Paranormal and Supernatural, that's why it's in the General Debunking subforum.

Desenmascarar - it's a nice word in Spanish, like stripping away the flashy make-up to expose the ugly reality.

a phenomenon
it happens to me
goosebumps
twitch
on the shoulders
yawning
the mental prayer
do the yawns
stop

What's the word in Spanish for blog?

ORZIL wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:This forum is: General Debunking ‹ Paranormal & Supernatural

There is no solid evidence for Paranormal and Supernatural, that's why it's in the General Debunking subforum.

Desenmascarar - it's a nice word in Spanish, like stripping away the flashy make-up to expose the ugly reality.

a phenomenon

Oh dearie me, ORZIL stumbles at the first fence.

'Phenomenon' isn't a spoooky word for ghostie, it means something that has actually been observed. If you can't provide evidence for something, it ain't a phenomenon.

it happens to me

Aaaand we're to anecdotes...it's like watching one of the ordinary bunnies in the Duracell ad slowly going round in a circle.

goosebumps
twitch
on the shoulders

Yeah, you know goosebumps are a merely a physical response to fear? Or maybe you need to turn up your central heating.

yawning
the mental prayer
do the yawns
stop

ORZIL; Puttin' the 'bad poe' in 'bad poetry'.

ORZIL wrote:
this subject
in this forum
should be prohibited
because there is no
empirical evidence

Complete and utter twaddle. Claims exist to be tested to destruction. They don't get a free-ride just because they fall apart like a clown's car on the most trivial of perusal.

Bought Psychic News to see what all this might be about. Haven't opened it yet. I'm reading the cover first.

aufbahrung wrote:Bought Psychic News to see what all this might be about. Haven't opened it yet. I'm reading the cover first.

I see emerging through a foggy haze that a cover note like this one will soon appear:

As long as there are smudges on photographs, there will be belief in ghosts.

Wheelspawn wrote:As long as there are smudges on photographs, there will be belief in ghosts.

Yes. You need to quit looking at them mucky pictures OZRIL.

As long as people think that existence is essentially material, believers in ghosts will be laughed at.

jamest wrote:As long as people think that existence is essentially material, believers in ghosts will be laughed at.

jamest wrote:As long as people think that existence is essentially material, believers in ghosts will be laughed at.

I don't think existence is essentially material. I think essentiality is essentially essential and that existence is existential. I could say that consequence is consequential, but I think you get the picture.



A major part of theism is the idea that words are powerful. In the right hands, they are. You are not that guy.

jamest wrote:As long as people think that existence is essentially material, believers in ghosts will be laughed at.

How’s that job at UPS, delivering material to material beings?

Is this forum allowed to cite links from Wikipedia?

No.

Are rationalist evidences valid?

ORZIL wrote:Is this forum allowed to cite links from Wikipedia?

You already asked this before, and the answer was 'of course you're allowed to cite links' just as you would be on any forum.